The recent wave of refugees arriving in Europe has given rise to much social debate. One important issue in this debate regards public opinions about the way political institutions should deal with existing prejudice against refugees. We examined this question in three studies. In Study 1 (N = 119), we assessed the relationship between participants' agreement with refugees' inclusion, perceived realistic and symbolic threats, and attitudes toward refugees' acculturation. In Study 2 (N = 166), we tested the effects of the existence (vs. nonexistence) of government refugee inclusion policies on participants' prejudice toward refugees. In Study 3 (N = 112), we tested the effect of governments' integrative (vs. assimilative vs. uncertainty) policies on prejudice toward refugees. Realistic and symbolic threats predicted agreement with assimilation, but realistic threat also negatively predicted integration. Moreover, the presence of inclusive policies decreased perceived threat of, and negative attitudes toward, refugees. Perceived threat and negative attitudes emerged more strongly when government policies were uncertain than when they were directed at integration or assimilation, and predicted participants' agreement with refugees' assimilation. We discuss the social and theoretical implications of these results. © 2018 American Psychological Association.

Prejudice Refugees Perceived threat Inclusive policies Acculturation

immigration policy Acculturation governance approach refugee social inclusion Portugal population migration symbolism